Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.

"It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church"

Why read these articles? The secular press has been salivating for days ever since this the release of this document was announced. The Pope "says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches." Sigh. Of course, no context or clarification (note the change of "suffer from defects" to the blunt "defective").

While I hope our Orthodox leaders say 'thanks but no thanks' to the Emperor Darth Sidius'... sorry, Pope's gracious and generous open door of grace, I do have to say that the two moves he's made this week have raised my opinion of him. Finally a Pope with some cojones.

I can respect and feel more Christian kinship with a tough, conservative, traditional worshipping, Catholic Church a lot more than the spiritually namby pamby mess they've got now. Chop off all the liberal parts, weed out the weirdos, and take 'em back to the good old days. (Though, this is probably wishful thinking - these changes may be too little, too late.)

Logged

On the spiritual path somewhere between the Simpsons and St. Theophan the Recluse, but I still can't see the Springfield city limits sign yet.

I can respect and feel more Christian kinship with a tough, conservative, traditional worshipping, Catholic Church a lot more than the spiritually namby pamby mess they've got now. Chop off all the liberal parts, weed out the weirdos, and take 'em back to the good old days. (Though, this is probably wishful thinking - these changes may be too little, too late.)

Ditto. I think the Eastern prelates will only be heartened by a more vibrant orthodoxy.

This document, following Dominus Iesus, is only emphasizing once again the teaching clarified and re-iterated by the Second Vatican Council. It needs to be emphasized because the heterodox speaking of the "spirit of Vatican II" are always trying to paint the council as a rupture, a break with tradition. This document and last week's Motu Proprio both emphasize that there is but one Church (not an "old" Church and a "new" Church) and that the Second Vatican Council is to be interpreted in the light of the Church's constant tradition.

I doubt your hierarchs would want union with a Church that would give away the farm!

This document, however, is more for us Catholics, I think. A good number of Catholics suffer from delusions of universalism, an impression encouraged, no doubt, by dissenting liberals in the Church.

It's too late, you're all fighting a loosing battle...just give up, it's so much easier. Who wouldn't want peace, tranquility, and unity for all Christians? Don't fight it, just let the Church evolve naturally

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry

I think it's interesting that this came out before the next round of Catholic-Orthodox dialog, and I hope this will serve as a wake up call to our hierarchs.

Worry not. My own bishop headed our last 'dialog' and what was published for public consumption and what was actually accomplished were a bit different. 'Agreement to continue disagreement, but be nicer about it' was more the reality.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

I don't suppose that means he or any of his successors are willing to give up the big chair and just be one of the boys? How about Head Boy (would that be a good Harry Potter analogy?)

No, because in our view, that was not the way it was before the schism. I mean, he IS one of the boys, but he isn't ONLY one of the boys.

In other words, the pope would exercise a primacy of more than honor only and less than total supremacy. In an eventual restoration of full communion, I can see the pope with regard to the East as being in a "head of state" kind of role, the chief spokesman to the wider world, a high court of appeal, and probably little more. The Eastern Catholic Churches already have increasing independence.

The Papacy is a divinely instituted office present in the church from the beginning or it isn't.The Pope has supreme, full and immediate jurisdiction over the entire church or he doesn't.The Pope can without reference to or consent of the church proclaim doctrine infallible in certain circumstances or he can't.The Orthodox Church contains the fullness of faith, without defects, or it doesn't.

Those questions to me, among others, really are that simple; and I don't see how one side or the other could change it's tune on these and not fundamentally compromise something about itself.

I'm glad the document came out, because the Pope is really saying by it that they will not be the ones to compromise. That leaves one possible party to do so.

Those questions to me, among others, really are that simple; and I don't see how one side or the other could change it's tune on these and not fundamentally compromise something about itself.

I'm glad the document came out, because the Pope is really saying by it that they will not be the ones to compromise. That leaves one possible party to do so.

I think the distinction must be that this present Pope will not be the one to compromise. However, a pope who'd compromise this principal is probably going to be of the liberal, anything goes variety. Orthodox certainly don't need or want that.

Logged

On the spiritual path somewhere between the Simpsons and St. Theophan the Recluse, but I still can't see the Springfield city limits sign yet.

As he was the architect of Dominus Iesus last century, I hardly find this surprising.

Isn't this, though, the Orthodox view of things, that those not within the fold of Orthodoxy have, at best, a defective understanding of ekklesia?

Yeppers. Sauce for the goose, taste your own (cyber-)venom and all that.

Anyway just like I'm not offended by praying for the conversion of the Jews so it is with Rome maintaining its claim to be the one true church. It's really not news! The Pope can't contradict past defined doctrines even if he wanted to (which he doesn't).

This like Dominus Iesus gets my respect.

Now how about some highest-common-denominator ecumenism? Each side believes it's the one true church; let's have each explain why, face to face, without any of the shrill online junk from both sides (about 'graceless heretics' and all that).

In other words, the pope would exercise a primacy of more than honor only and less than total supremacy. In an eventual restoration of full communion, I can see the pope with regard to the East as being in a "head of state" kind of role, the chief spokesman to the wider world, a high court of appeal, and probably little more.

Not a head of state, but an ambassador perhaps. I like the original title best, though: "First among equals." It perfectly describes the Papacy as it ought to be.

Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

Should reconciliation ever take place (yeah, right) would the Orthodox have a problem with the Pope still retaining his temporal status as potentate of the Vatican City? Or would Orthodox hierarchs force him to be a spiritual leader only and leave the Vatican to be governed by secular authorities?

Should reconciliation ever take place (yeah, right) would Orthodox hierarchs force him to be a spiritual leader only and leave the Vatican to be governed by secular authorities?

I don't think Orthodox hierarchs would force him to do anything--we just don't force anything upon anyone. As a condition of reconciliation, though, we would definitely require that he renounce his place of supremacy, though we would not revoke his place of honour. As far as the Vatican is concerned, I don't know. I'm not sure we would require it, as I personally don't see it as an obstacle to reconciliation. It may be something a Pope chooses to do himself, though.

Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens

Should reconciliation ever take place (yeah, right) would the Orthodox have a problem with the Pope still retaining his temporal status as potentate of the Vatican City? Or would Orthodox hierarchs force him to be a spiritual leader only and leave the Vatican to be governed by secular authorities?

I would hope not. You want the Holy Father to end up like the Ecumenical Patriarch? I can only imagine the constraints the Italian government would put on him.

I would hope not. You want the Holy Father to end up like the Ecumenical Patriarch? I can only imagine the constraints the Italian government would put on him.

Are you saying that the Italians would behave in such a ruthless, reckless fashion towards the pope worthy of the Turks? If that's the case, then Europe's soul has been sold to the evil one! Details at 11!

Are you saying that the Italians would behave in such a ruthless, reckless fashion towards the pope worthy of the Turks? If that's the case, then Europe's soul has been sold to the evil one! Details at 11!

You never know---Catholic monarchs were bad enough in the old days. But fascist and Marxist governments have been even worse. Henry II did public penance when Thomas Becket was killed. In the 20th century, masses of Catholic nuns, priests and bishops were killed in Mexico, Germany and elsewhere without a thought.

Then there's always the "soft" oppression of secularist governments, and the Italian republic is one of them. Look what they did to the Popes a century ago.

And hostile secular governments interfering with the Church are nothing new, in East or West. Remember the czars?

The Papacy is a divinely instituted office present in the church from the beginning or it isn't.The Pope has supreme, full and immediate jurisdiction over the entire church or he doesn't.The Pope can without reference to or consent of the church proclaim doctrine infallible in certain circumstances or he can't.The Orthodox Church contains the fullness of faith, without defects, or it doesn't.

Those questions to me, among others, really are that simple; and I don't see how one side or the other could change it's tune on these and not fundamentally compromise something about itself.

I'm glad the document came out, because the Pope is really saying by it that they will not be the ones to compromise. That leaves one possible party to do so.

Thinking about this a little more, the timing of this statement is interesting to me. The Pope, with his motu proprio declares the Tridentine Rite is to be celebrated whereever, whenever without any infringement upon priests by diocesean bishops. Why did the pope do this? Was it to bring the schismatic Society of St. Pius X and other sedevacantists back into full communion with Rome? If so, does this recent statement by Pope Benedict XVI signify to the SSPX and others that the Roman Catholic Church is not at all diluting its doctrines with regard to ecumenism and other "churches"? Or is it meant to clarify that the papacy is the true mark of a church and that the SSPX and other sedevacantists are still schismatic? My point is that this statement is meant for Catholic housecleaning rather than dialogue or disinvite dialogue with other "churches" that are "defective." MHO.

You are right on the money. Ever since he spoke famously about the "hermeneutic of continuity" in 2005, Pope Benedict has been embarking on reclaiming the Second Vatican Council for the whole of Catholic tradition. In this project he is extending and expanding upon the work begun by John Paul II. The two recent documents coming from Rome are part and parcel of this labor.

Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches

While I am not pro-ecumenism and I am happy he didn't make a pro-ecumenist statement, I think this statement also shows that the Pope is very confused because just last November he was praying with the Orthodox as if the two were sister Churches.

So what does this mean for Orthodoxy and our Bishops, who are our representatives? It means that, Pope Benedict has confirmed the "elephant in the room" papal supremacy. I think he needs to be commended for this statement. Now, are we going to accept this? No, of course not. So, what should we do. A friend once compared Orthodox - Catholic dialogue to a divorced couple where the husband wants to get back together with his wife, but insists he keeps his mistress. While the wife gets along with the mistress, she said she would never accept her husband keeping the mistress. So, they agreed to disagree and became good friends. helping and respecting each other as necessary, but otherwise leading separate lives. This is what I believe we should do. Love and respect each other. Even possibly inviting each other to great feast days and speaking out against common concerns, but otherwise, leaving each other be.

While I am not pro-ecumenism and I am happy he didn't make a pro-ecumenist statement, I think this statement also shows that the Pope is very confused because just last November he was praying with the Orthodox as if the two were sister Churches.

I don't think Pope Benedict has shown any confusion at all. You seem to be projecting onto his statements an Orthodox ecclesiology that says that those outside the Church (in his case, the RCC) are heretics with whom prayer is forbidden. Pope Benedict has never proclaimed this regarding us EO, AFAIK; to the contrary, even though the Pope has stated that the EO Church is defective for its lack of the Papacy, he still sees our church as a valid church with grace-filled sacraments, not as a body of heretics.

His statement that the Church subsists in the Catholic Church, together with his conscious avoidance of any statement that the Church is the Catholic Church seems to say in different words essentially what many Orthodox say, "I know where the Church is, but I do not presume to define where the Church is not."

I don't think Pope Benedict has shown any confusion at all. You seem to be projecting onto his statements an Orthodox ecclesiology that says that those outside the Church (in his case, the RCC) are heretics with whom prayer is forbidden.

Lol so the canons the Church made forbidding prayer with heretics which were made before the West went into schism didnt apply to Rome? Either one of two things: Rome has rejected this canon (like many other canons) or recognizes this canon as valid but just goes against the canon (like how they treat many of their canons as well).

So what does this mean for Orthodoxy and our Bishops, who are our representatives? It means that, Pope Benedict has confirmed the "elephant in the room" papal supremacy. I think he needs to be commended for this statement. Now, are we going to accept this? No, of course not. So, what should we do. A friend once compared Orthodox - Catholic dialogue to a divorced couple where the husband wants to get back together with his wife, but insists he keeps his mistress. While the wife gets along with the mistress, she said she would never accept her husband keeping the mistress. So, they agreed to disagree and became good friends. helping and respecting each other as necessary, but otherwise leading separate lives. This is what I believe we should do. Love and respect each other. Even possibly inviting each other to great feast days and speaking out against common concerns, but otherwise, leaving each other be.

Basil

The Pope of Rome is a heretic...

Logged

O God be merciful to me a sinner. You, O Lord who created me, have mercy on me. I have sinned without number,O Lord, have mercy on me and forgive me, a sinner.

A friend once compared Orthodox - Catholic dialogue to a divorced couple where the husband wants to get back together with his wife, but insists he keeps his mistress. While the wife gets along with the mistress, she said she would never accept her husband keeping the mistress. So, they agreed to disagree and became good friends. helping and respecting each other as necessary, but otherwise leading separate lives. This is what I believe we should do.

I love this analogy! I especially like the part about being "good friends". I also think it was very courageous of the Pope to make the Catholic position clear, and Orthodoxy has also made its position clear. Reconciliation may not be what many envisage it to be (i.e. full Communion and Unity), but if we can be honest and draw our lines in the sand and say: "OK, this is what we not prepared to compromise on", at least we know where we both stand, and can avoid a false ecumenism. Honesty is the basis of any relationship.

While I am not pro-ecumenism and I am happy he didn't make a pro-ecumenist statement, I think this statement also shows that the Pope is very confused because just last November he was praying with the Orthodox as if the two were sister Churches.

I think that when comparing RCs and EOs in terms of how "ecumenical" they are, we almost always end up comparing apples and oranges.

On the one hand, Orthodox see RCs praying with Orthodox and Protestants; receiving converts from Orthodoxy without re-chrismation and recognizing Protestant baptisms; admitting Orthodox (and PNCC and Assyrians) to communion, and allowing Catholics to request communion from those groups under some circumstances, etc., and conclude that Catholics are liberally ecumenical. Or they sees RCs counting several councils as ecumenical which had little or no Eastern participation; counting as dogmas several teachings which weren't agree upon by the East; celebrating the anniversary (1996) of the Union of Brest, etc., and conclude that Catholics are fanatically un-ecumenical.

On the other hand, Catholics might thinks EOs are liberally ecumenical since, for example, in Orthodoxy A can be in full communion with both B and C, without B and C being in full communion with each other (as was the case, until recently, with the ROCOR situation); or because of Orthodox participation in the WCC. Or Catholics might think EOs fanatically un-ecumenical with re-chrismating (or even re-baptizing) Catholic converts; calling Catholics "heretics"; denying Catholics communion; the fairly harsh statements against Eastern Catholics, etc.

Lol so the canons the Church made forbidding prayer with heretics which were made before the West went into schism didnt apply to Rome?

Again, you're looking at things from OUR perspective, which I don't think applies here. Looking at this from Rome's POV, how much force does canon law have when the Pope is above the canons?

Quote

Either one of two things: Rome has rejected this canon (like many other canons) or recognizes this canon as valid but just goes against the canon (like how they treat many of their canons as well).

Returning to what I said earlier, I suggest a third approach: Pope Benedict doesn't see the Orthodox as heretics, so the canons forbidding prayer with heretics don't apply to prayers with the Orthodox.

Well here is one thing I found so far from St. Mark of Ephesus: "We have cut the Latins off from us for no other reason than that they are not only schismatics, but heretics. For this reason it is wholly improper to unite with them.... The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics as well. However, the Church was silent on this because their race is large and more powerful than ours... and we wished not to fall into triumphalism over the Latins as heretics but to be accepting of their return and to cultivate brotherliness."